Wands are made with all kinds of magical woods with different magical cores corresponding to temper and other personality traits.

But are they all equally powerful? The Elder Wand sort of points in the direction that wands aren't equal.

And would having a better wand than you mean having a better car or would it be like shaving your legs before a swimming tournament?

 

The Elder Wand is the exception and was a big deal because of it.

Normal wands should be roughly on par with each other, having different specialities, and any real power difference would come from the wizard having a deep bond with their wand. At least if we judge by the Pottermore wand articles.

 

I thought this was going to be a much less serious thread...

Ollivander himself says:

What power means in HP canon is something open to (and seemingly endlessly) debate(d), but wands certainly have specialities.

 

Some wands are more powerful than others. But you only get good results with a wand that is matched with you. So there's limited utility it taking up another wizard's more powerful wand if it's not suited to you. It may even backfire...

The Elder Wand is the exception not because it is the only wand that is more powerful, but rather because it is the ultimately disloyal wand, so you don't have to worry about it not being matched to you. If you defeated its previous master, you will be guaranteed a good connection with it.

 

Well, Draco's wand was just as disloyal as the Elder Wand, so I don't think this is a legitimate explanation. It's a better explanation and canon would be better if it had been done like this, but it doesn't seem to resonate with what happened in DH.
Additionally, Ollivander confirmed that Draco's wand changed his master, and Harry felt a good connection with it, albeit not one as good as with his old wand.

 

That's the salient point. The Elder Wand works just as well for one wizard or witch as it does for the next, individual talent not withstanding. Draco's wand worked for Harry, yes, but never quite as well as his own wand.

 

Draco's wand is disloyal but not as disloyal as the Elder wand. Normal wands have varying levels of loyalty depending on their nature. In Ollivander's wand woods descriptions he sometimes notes a particular wood as being especially loyal or disloyal. It's not a binary thing but rather a scale, with the Elder wand right at the end of the spectrum.

 

They can't be equally powerful, just like wizards aren't equally powerful.

I think it's mostly about potential. People rarely use their full potential in anything, so it's not like Harry is operating at 70% of wand efficiency or anything like that. Truthfully, while a wand can be more powerful than another, I doubt it matters all that much on a day-to-day basis.

 

That theory you just posted would mean that the wand's parts are wholly irrelevant for the connection and only its loyalty would determine the user's ability to wield it.

I think it's rather the other way around: Every wand is equally disloyal, but nonetheless, some wands just aren't suited or worse suited for most people because of the parts they're made of.
Except for the Elder wand.

EDIT: After reading Taure's post, obviously that doesn't work. However, I still uphold that the parts the wand's composed of have to play a role in how effective it is for each wizard, even if it's loyal to him.

 

The section on Pottermore about wand woods agrees with you.

It goes on to describe how different woods require different traits in a wizard to match well.

 

One interpretation:

Wands are like a man's riding horse back in the day, or perhaps their hunting dog. Certain breeds carry certain common traits but each one is an individual. They may have been trained by a professional but they bond with their owner so long as the owner cares for them and puts them to use. Anyone who knows how to ride could probably use another man's horse, but if it is particularly bonded with the owner, it may buck any but the most expert rider.

 

I believe that no wands are really equal, or else every wizard would just walk around with a wooden stick and call it a day. It's quite clear that all wands channel and amplify magical energy in a way that a Wizard simply cannot on his own (Most of the examples of Wandless Magic have also not had beams/jets/lights associated with them). This leaves us to believe that Wandless Magic is only capable (or mostly) of using Charms and Spells that are 'non-visible' in a sense. Maybe trying to shoot a jet or beam from your finger would fry it, or turn its effect back on you?

One thing is clear though, all wands are the same in the base sense. They all get the same job done, just some are naturally stronger or naturally more attuned to certain subjects. This is easily proven when you look at Ollivander's memoirs about certain woods and their properties. He specifically cites Cherry as having Lethal Power on its own, but when paired with Dragon Heartstring, needing a wizard with exceptional self-control (though, you have to remember that the wands don't always choose someone with that particular quality, such as Lockheart getting the same exact Wand and being an impulsive idiot). Then he gives a warning to anyone willing to get in the way of a user of Holly and Phoenix, "nothing and nobody should get in their way" or something along those lines. It's very clear that all wands have different levels of power, just like all wizards do.

 

This may be more science oriented than the possible canon explanation, but I have been wondering about this topic and came up with something like that.

Wands are magical, but aren't sentient. They're pieces of wood with magic infused components inside. So it's not about wand being loyal sensu stricto. The wand isn't acting upon their perception of user, it's user magic that makes wand work.
Let's say different trees and animals have each unique affinity towards some "types" of magic. These "types" correspond with each human unique talents in magical arts. So when testing (and using) wand, wizard put their magic into the wand. It may or may not resonate with components of specific stick. If they aren't compatible - wand doesn't work. If they are 100% ok with each other - whoa, that's some powerful connection, somebody is lucky to be able to use their magic very efficiently. But it's a spectrum - some wands can "make do" but won't be perfect fit - the magic will be weaker. By accepting the wand the connection is made and the magical bond is set - one wizard for one wand.

So, if this "loyalty" is really a resonance between the user and the wand, then power of each wand is determined by the potential of the user. A wizard is powerful because of their inherent talent and how compatible he is with his wand. That may explain why one wizard wand works for other, but not as good - it's because their resonance is lacking, but not to the point of 0% synch.

Conclusion - wands aren't equal, but you can't become more powerful by using stronger wand. What wand you will use is determined by your power. It's like Thor or King Arthur. Their weapons are powerful, but only they can use it.

Note 1 - Expelliarmus and how it fits into this theory.
It's a spell, right? Disarms (since always) and changes the ownership of the wand (because Elder Wand had to fit into narrative, yeee). The possibilities how it might work are endless but for now let's say this spell severs the bond between original user and the wand and creating a bond between the disarmer and the wand. The strength of the resonance still varies (like with Harry and Draco's wand. Acceptable, but not as good as original one).

Note 2 - the Elder Wand is a hoe.
So Expelliarmus/killing (per analogiam) changes the ownership, all is clear. How about resonance? Easy. The unique components of Elder Wand make it 100% compatible with everybody. As it's quite powerful on its own, this wand can make everyone stronger.

Or maybe I'm trying to apply logic to hasty plot. But it was fun to analyze.